Wait, does this mean people will stop taking pictures that look like the developer pissed in the emulsion?

I have a friend that has a 1 year old. Every single picture he has of him is taken with Instagram in the sepia piss tone. I wonder at what he'll start regretting not having a good looking picture of his baby?

Heh most will just scroll and hit accept and only find out what they agreed to after the fact (through other channels.) At that point isn't everything of the user's fair game for instagram even if the user tries to back out and rescind the agreement?

Felgraf:Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.

This is exactly what I came to say. I don't have Instagram. If my face appeared in a photo which later appeared in an ad I can't see how they'd have any right to my image. I suspect this is going to become a problem for them.

Felgraf:Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.

The individual taking a photo has the legal copyright to the photo unless they were hired to take it (in which case, it's a "work for hire" and the person who hired them owns the rights).

Most states do not have a law saying that individuals have any publicity rights and in those which do (New York and California come to mind), it's only individuals who are able to make money off of their pictures (i.e., celebrities) who have publicity rights to their own image.

meanmutton:Felgraf: Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.

The individual taking a photo has the legal copyright to the photo unless they were hired to take it (in which case, it's a "work for hire" and the person who hired them owns the rights).

Most states do not have a law saying that individuals have any publicity rights and in those which do (New York and California come to mind), it's only individuals who are able to make money off of their pictures (i.e., celebrities) who have publicity rights to their own image.

In no states do you have a right to privacy when appearing in public.

Huh. So we could take pictures of known CEO's and use them in advertisements, to among other things give the impression they endorse a product (Without actually SAYING they're endorsing the product), and that would be absolutely and totally legal, so long as we took the photos in public?

Felgraf:meanmutton: Felgraf: Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.

The individual taking a photo has the legal copyright to the photo unless they were hired to take it (in which case, it's a "work for hire" and the person who hired them owns the rights).

Most states do not have a law saying that individuals have any publicity rights and in those which do (New York and California come to mind), it's only individuals who are able to make money off of their pictures (i.e., celebrities) who have publicity rights to their own image.

In no states do you have a right to privacy when appearing in public.

Huh. So we could take pictures of known CEO's and use them in advertisements, to among other things give the impression they endorse a product (Without actually SAYING they're endorsing the product), and that would be absolutely and totally legal, so long as we took the photos in public?

meanmutton:Felgraf: meanmutton: Felgraf: Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.

The individual taking a photo has the legal copyright to the photo unless they were hired to take it (in which case, it's a "work for hire" and the person who hired them owns the rights).

Most states do not have a law saying that individuals have any publicity rights and in those which do (New York and California come to mind), it's only individuals who are able to make money off of their pictures (i.e., celebrities) who have publicity rights to their own image.

In no states do you have a right to privacy when appearing in public.

Huh. So we could take pictures of known CEO's and use them in advertisements, to among other things give the impression they endorse a product (Without actually SAYING they're endorsing the product), and that would be absolutely and totally legal, so long as we took the photos in public?

Well, the impression thing could give them grounds to sue on libel.

But if you have a picture of William Clay Ford getting out of a BMW, there isn't a whole lot that Ford Motor Company could do to BMW for running ads featuring that picture.

Felgraf:Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.

It's complicated. You can take a picture of basically any one you want in public without consequence. There's no real copyright issues, since the photographer would hold the copyright and it's perfectly legal to take pictures of things and people. Where it becomes a gray area is when you or a third party publish that photo for monetary gain without a liability release.

Now, whether Instagram/Facebook using photographs uploaded to their services under their Terms of Service within their network as advertizing actually constitute "publishing"? On the surface, probably, but it's a weird legal gray area. And if a random stranger out in public has their picture taken and posted to an add on facebook, I would think for some wrong to occur they would need to demonstrate their capturing their public image for use in a product caused them some sort of harm?

Though I'm sure there's some one on Fark who knows the issues better than I do...

error 303:Felgraf: Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.

It's complicated. You can take a picture of basically any one you want in public without consequence. There's no real copyright issues, since the photographer would hold the copyright and it's perfectly legal to take pictures of things and people. Where it becomes a gray area is when you or a third party publish that photo for monetary gain without a liability release.

Now, whether Instagram/Facebook using photographs uploaded to their services under their Terms of Service within their network as advertizing actually constitute "publishing"? On the surface, probably, but it's a weird legal gray area. And if a random stranger out in public has their picture taken and posted to an add on facebook, I would think for some wrong to occur they would need to demonstrate their capturing their public image for use in a product caused them some sort of harm?

Though I'm sure there's some one on Fark who knows the issues better than I do...

Possibly Instagram can claim copyright because they're not your original pictures. They're pictures you uploaded and then Instagram edited them with the filters, etc. So since Instagram produced the final images they become Instagram's to sell. (IANAIPL)

Skr:Heh most will just scroll and hit accept and only find out what they agreed to after the fact (through other channels.) At that point isn't everything of the user's fair game for instagram even if the user tries to back out and rescind the agreement?

This is blowing up facebook etc. People will find out, then rumors will spread that are worse than the actual terms, then people will leave and it won't be cool anymore. Done and done.

ArkPanda:error 303: Felgraf: Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.

It's complicated. You can take a picture of basically any one you want in public without consequence. There's no real copyright issues, since the photographer would hold the copyright and it's perfectly legal to take pictures of things and people. Where it becomes a gray area is when you or a third party publish that photo for monetary gain without a liability release.

Now, whether Instagram/Facebook using photographs uploaded to their services under their Terms of Service within their network as advertizing actually constitute "publishing"? On the surface, probably, but it's a weird legal gray area. And if a random stranger out in public has their picture taken and posted to an add on facebook, I would think for some wrong to occur they would need to demonstrate their capturing their public image for use in a product caused them some sort of harm?

Though I'm sure there's some one on Fark who knows the issues better than I do...

Possibly Instagram can claim copyright because they're not your original pictures. They're pictures you uploaded and then Instagram edited them with the filters, etc. So since Instagram produced the final images they become Instagram's to sell. (IANAIPL)

You can give away your copyrights, just like you can give away a doughnut. In this case, you do in the in terms of service.(IAAIPA)

~~~~REPOST THIS IF U USE INSTAGRAM~~~~ Facebook is STEALING all your INSTAGRAM PHOTOS. All your grainy, ill-conceived photos of food and graffiti and sunsets will be STOLEN AND SOLD to Halliburton for ILLEGAL USE in advertisements for SUVs and BABY SEAL PELTS!!!`~~~~

I can't wait for the day when the US joins the civillized world (i.e. Europe) and determines that there is indeed an individual right to privacy. Everyone says that there is not, but a right to privacy was found by the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade. I would like to see an explanation of how that right does not apply in these situations.